Comparing comparison indices: Assessing the validity of different magnitude comparison measures across presentation formats and age groups

Marcie Penner-Wilger, King's University College at Western University

Aaron Cecala, Elizabethtown College

Melissa Elfers, King's University College at Western University

Abstract

Magnitude comparison tasks are used to assess the precision of
numerical representations. Recent research, however, questions the validity of
different measures of magnitude comparison. We investigated the validity of five
performance measures: overall RT, overall accuracy, numerical ratio effect (RT),
numerical ratio effect (accuracy), and Weber fraction. Kindergarten and
university students completed symbolic and non-symbolic magnitude comparison
tasks and a math skill measure. For children and adults, we calculated
Chronbach’s $\alpha$ separately for each presentation format. All values
were in the unacceptable range, indicating that the different indices were not
measuring the same construct. For children, a multiple regression predicting
KeyMath scores from symbolic and non-symbolic indices showed that only
non-symbolic overall accuracy and symbolic overall RT were predictors. For
adults, a multiple regression predicting French Kit scores showed that only the
symbolic numerical ratio effect (RT) was a predictor. No index demonstrated
predictive validity across formats or age groups.